Resources versus Capabilities: Social Endowments in Egalitarian Theory
Political Studies, (2007, Vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 133-152)
General Subserie Research Paper No. 2016-08
21 Pages Posted: 3 Apr 2012 Last revised: 20 Oct 2016
Date Written: 2007
Two of the most important theories in contemporary liberal egalitarianism are Ronald Dworkin’s equality of resources and Amartya Sen’s capability approach. Recently Dworkin has claimed that Sen’s capability approach does not provide a genuine alternative to equality of resources. In this article, we provide both an internal and an external critique of Dworkin’s claim. In the first part of the article we develop an internal critique by providing a detailed analysis of Dworkin’s claim. Andrew Williams has contested Dworkin’s claim, but he has failed to convince Dworkin of his objections.We analyze this debate, and offer an argument that,we hope, settles this dispute. In the second part of the article we argue that an analysis beyond the current parameters of the liberal-egalitarian debate points to three significant differences between Dworkin’s and Sen’s egalitarian theories: the degree to which they rely on an ideal-theoretical approach; their ability to judge social structures that are intertwined with people’s social endowments; and their endorsement of a well-defined criterion to demarcate morally relevant from morally irrelevant inequalities. This broader analysis not only reinforces our conclusion that Dworkin’s equality of resources and Sen’s capability approach are genuinely distinct, but it also suggests some more general insights that may be relevant for a better understanding of contemporary egalitarian thinking.
Keywords: Ronald Dworkin, Amartya Sen, equality of resources, capability approach, egalitarianism, Luck Egalitarianism
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation